SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Fnord666
President Trump's Supreme Court nominee argued last year that net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content.
Trump's pick is Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The DC Circuit twice upheld the net neutrality rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission under former Chairman Tom Wheeler, despite Kavanaugh's dissent. (In another tech-related case, Kavanaugh ruled that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata is legal.)
While current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai eliminated the net neutrality rules, Kavanaugh could help restrict the FCC's authority to regulate Internet providers as a member of the Supreme Court. Broadband industry lobby groups have continued to seek Supreme Court review of the legality of Wheeler's net neutrality rules even after Pai's repeal.
[...] Consumers generally expect ISPs to deliver Internet content in un-altered form. But Kavanaugh argued that ISPs are like cable TV operators—since cable TV companies can choose not to carry certain channels, Internet providers should be able to choose not to allow access to a certain website, he wrote.
"Internet service providers may not necessarily generate much content of their own, but they may decide what content they will transmit, just as cable operators decide what content they will transmit," Kavanaugh wrote. "Deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN and deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN.com are not meaningfully different for First Amendment purposes."
Kavanaugh's argument did not address the business differences between cable TV and Internet service.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:08AM (8 children)
We get the government we deserve.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @01:07PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:22PM (6 children)
Not really, the primary voters wanted Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic nominee, but the DNC was too smart for us, they decided that they needed to fix the primary so that Hillary would win and had to deliberately disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters in order to make it happen. On top of that, they had to put their thumb on the scale with the super delegates just to make certain that somebody that the people clearly wanted wouldn't win.
You can't blame the voters when the party is that corrupt and ignorant that they didn't understand that the voters get to decide who the candidate is and ultimately who the President is. If you have to rig a primary for a candidate, the likelihood of them winning the general election is poor as you usually have to win more votes than what you're own party supplies to win. You also have to actually convince the voters that you've got something for them and Hillary couldn't bother to do that because it was her turn.
Disgusting cunt.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @04:47PM (3 children)
You have to admit that DNC corruption saved our country.
The fact that roughly a quarter of the voters wanted to run the USA like Venezuela is terrifying.
In the past century, over 100 million people died of that shit... why you no learn?
The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. The productive people catch on, becoming unproductive because "why not?" -- and the nation's work ethic is thus destroyed.
Perhaps the issue originates with the Vietnam War draft. You could avoid it by going to college, so lots of unmanly communists did exactly that, and then they became the intolerant leftist professors we see today. College culture was damaged, and not it is obsessed with indoctrination and with punishment of whatever the left determines to be crimethink.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:35PM (2 children)
How does that follow from the ownership of the means of production by the workers who operate said means?
Incels, you mean!
However, how do you account for the International Committee of the Fourth International's [wsws.org] sharp disagreement with identity politics (and ICFI's disagreement with many other planks of the neoliberalist [DNC] platform)?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2018, @12:40AM (1 child)
Does this happen? No. No it does not. Other than the occasional organic food store cooperative on the verge of bankruptcy while immersed in a filthy-rich capitalist environment, workers don't get to own the means of production.
It doesn't even make sense. Does every floor sweeper get to own a share equal to every semiconductor physicist? If they together own a few chip fabs, who decides to shut them down or build new ones? What if the floor sweeper wants to sell one for $42.83 so he can pay his cable bill? Getting that job just gives you a gift of an equal share, at the expense of all others, or do you have to buy in? If you have to buy in, then most people can't do that. If you can sell your share, then workers will soon not have ownership, but if you can't sell then you aren't really an owner.
Imagine a failing business with one valuable asset. The business gets down to 2 remaining workers. All the rest have quit. The last person gets full ownership? "You quit." "No, you quit." After it's just one person with an item worth a $billion, they can't hire a helper without giving that person a gift of half a $billion?
This is not a viable solution. Marx even admitted as much: socialism is a transitional step to communism. Of course, that doesn't work either.
Oh, and before you say that all the "communist" governments weren't "real communism", it doesn't matter. We end up with famine and death camps every time we try, and only a fool would believe that things will work out great if only we just try it again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2018, @02:19AM
*spots parent comment* Incoming Gish gallop! Hit the deck!
That must be why they are springing up around me left and right even here in flyover country.
Mondragon [wikipedia.org]
Wikipedia: "At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage. These ratios range from 3:1 to 9:1 in different cooperatives and average 5:1."
Are you familiar with corporate governance in a publicly traded corporation?
Why would a company operate in such a manner that its shareholders cannot afford their cable bills?
That is the model I understand.
Are you talking about opportunity cost in selecting one worker-owned cooperative to join exclusive of another?
This sounds like capitalism, the consequences of which you illustrate with "If you have to buy in, then most people can't do that. If you can sell your share, then workers will soon not have ownership...." I agree that is the ultimate condition of capitalism.
Why wouldn't you be able to "sell"--or perhaps we should say return, as the transaction itself would not represent a commodity itself subject to speculation in a market (identified problem above)--return the share back to the worker cooperative by putting in your two-week's notice?
You may not sell your body to somebody else, and it possesses no market value. I believe they tried to make human life a marketable commodity once before, and it did not go too well. Even a capitalist recognizes the danger of permitting a market of human lives for sale. Yet are you not the owner of your body?
Certainly! In the logic of your strange scenario, when the helper leaves, that $billion will be returned to this poor guy who cannot keep his workers, in the same manner that allowed the $billion to remain apparently undisturbed by the departure of every previous worker!
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday July 15 2018, @10:40PM
In the US? No they don't.
Both of the political parties you have are run for the benefit of the monied interests who fund them.
You are welcome to pretend different if you like.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 16 2018, @05:34PM
Clinton won the primary. get over it.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:14AM (39 children)
At least this asshole isn't pretending not to be the enemy.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:24AM (38 children)
For telling the truth? ISPs absolutely do and should have that right. And I have the right to not give them my custom for being assholes. That's how freedom and liberty work, you authoritarian dickweed.
The real problem is the monopoly/duopoly bullshit that regulatory capture and other shady practices have landed us with. Deal with that problem and all the others go the fuck away out of necessity.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:33AM (16 children)
Utility is a natural monopoly. No need for regulatory capture.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:41AM (15 children)
What's this on the bottom of my back? Why, it's my ass.
If you genuinely believe that, you have not a fucking clue the efforts major ISPs go through to make sure they have nothing resembling competition.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:05AM (7 children)
God damn, even for a netizen youre a piece of shit. Citizens united needs to be overturned because you crazy fucks are starting to believe the bullshit. I knew you were a bit of a clueless person, but wow. Now you're just openly an advocate of censorship. Doubtful you have the brain cells to comprehend, and i realize you will argue this as a 1st amendment right. Moron of the 13th degree.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:07AM (6 children)
I openly advocate liberty. Without the right to be an asshole, you have none.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:22AM (3 children)
You're not capable of understanding liberty. You start from some very simple premises and then stop. You are a low grade useful idiot and you are helping push forth a fascist society. This is made more tragic by the fact you believe you are supporting liberty. Sorry cuck, the elites have seeded you with their antichrist baby and left you at the altar.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:54AM (2 children)
You try so hard only to fail so miserably. Poor little AC, you have my pity.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @07:27AM
Aww, you're such a sweet guy. I'm glad I've gotten to know you over these past few years. If only the country had more true patriots like you! I will sleep well tonight knowing that TMB is looking over me.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @08:34PM
You don't have to try at all.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:24PM (1 child)
No you don't. You openly advocate for fascism. Honestly, I don't get why people as ignorant as you are even allowed to vote, you just fuck things up for those of us that actually do value freedom. Corporations are not now nor have they ever been people. Texas doesn't execute them and in no state in the union are they ever sent to prison for engaging in criminal activities. Every once in a very long while one of their executives will be sent to prison, but the penalties they're assessed are pretty small.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 16 2018, @05:40PM
I think you need to look that word up. It most certainly does not mean "individual liberty, even for people you don't like".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:42AM (4 children)
I hated economics, too much bullshit, but it also has some basic sensible notions.
Certain sectors of economy, like utilities, is dominated by scale, leading to monopoly/cartels.
You are an ignorant doofus. Adam Smith warned of monpoly/cartel hundreds of years ago.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:57AM (3 children)
Honey, sweety, darlin, we are quite capable of creating infrastructure that removes that issue. All we have to do is require it and eliminate all contracts and legislation that have gone into creating or strengthening monopoly status.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @07:31AM (2 children)
So, a series of voluntary contracts? Mediation will be done through a variety of free-market enforcers?
GENIUS!
(Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:17PM
LOL, you nailed it. He insists he's not Mr. Vim but I've told him on several occasions his economic "theories" reduce to the same kind of wild-eyed, staring-at-your-left-ear-and-twitching dogmatism.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 16 2018, @05:44PM
You did see the bit where I specifically said do away with exclusive contracts, yes? Rand would hate me for saying that but it's a key part of any well oiled capitalist system.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by exaeta on Sunday July 15 2018, @04:46PM (1 child)
ISPs use techniques like 12 month contracts, arbitration agreements, and hidden fees to displace competition.
We should start by banning long internet contracts and arbitration agreements. (this improves liberty, since we reduce state involvement in enforcing contracts)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 16 2018, @05:45PM
Without real competition it wouldn't help much.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:08AM (12 children)
"ISPs absolutely do and should have that right. And I have the right to not give them my custom for being assholes. That's how freedom and liberty work, you authoritarian dickweed."
So the ISPs should have the right to block stuff, and you should have the right not to give them your business. However, for all practical purposes, no, you don't have that right. Unless you want to stop using the internet or move to another country. Where at best you most likely will get another one to two more ISPs who will fail to live up to your expectations and you are back to nothing.
"The real problem is the monopoly/duopoly bullshit that regulatory capture and other shady practices have landed us with."
This is the correct solution. ISPs IMO should be broken up into common carrier data transit companies, and content/services/hosting providers. The former doesnt anything and doesn't block anything, and is a natural monopoly on last mile. And the latter can be a plethora of competing companies, with low barriers to market entry.
But that isn't what we have, and its not happening anytime soon.
So in the meantime, we have to deal with what we have. And right now what we have is massive vertical telecom oligopoly. And as long as that is what we are stuck with it is wrong to also give them the right to block stuff; while the public has no practical recourse.
"Deal with that problem and all the others go the fuck away out of necessity."
How do we deal with that problem? And how do we solve it without doing something A LOT MORE authoritarian to bring your solution to pass?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:21AM (7 children)
Naw. You don't achieve good ends by doing even more evil; you just make shit even worse. We've got two hundred and change years of fine examples of that ourselves and thousands more outside our borders going back.
If you have a problem, fix that problem instead of piling even more complexity on. Say you have a bugged shared library that's widely used. You can either go around to all the packages that use it and either send out pull requests for a workaround, build packages with a workaround for every package yourself, or you can just fix the module so that nobody has to worry about it ever again. Similar situation here.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:35AM (5 children)
Ah yes, ignore the massive control the oligarchy has over every aspect of your life and believe in some small grassroots campaign! Oh right, they tried that and municipal broadband was struck down over and over. And people such as yourself applauded as you thought a government agency providing a public service was *GASP* socialism! and would bring about the end times.
Fuck you ya jackass, you don't deserve to even post on this site under the guise of a libertarian. You are no libertarian, and if you truly think you are one then you are truly fucking stupid. Like really dumb, you can't get beyond the most simple premises of your ideology.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:48AM (2 children)
You troll so enthusiastically but so weakly. It makes me sad for you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @07:36AM
Well at least it made you sad if not ashamed to be yourself. We'll keep trying but I don't see much hope for you.
I get what is going on, you're riding the outrage wave and trying to spin your own politics inside justified anger. You are the worst but apparently there are enough dissatisfied people around here that will rally to anyone willing to "tell it like it is". You are the Trump if SoylentNews, be proud in your douchery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:27PM
You're quite possibly the most ignorant person in the internet if you think that was trolling. Those of us that have the intelligence of actual adults know perfectly well that what you're pushing doesn't work, never has and never will. People are not rational actors and market forces depend upon customers having multiple options, the time to research those options and the ability to switch to a different option that varies from the other available options.
In short, definitely not when it comes to the internet. I only have 1 option for wired broad band because the building I live in only has 1 option. Moving just to get another ISP is absolutely ridiculous.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:21PM
For someone who actually trolls with a good % of your posts it is amusing that you apparently dont quite have the definition locked down. It is ok though, nobidy expects much from a jackass. You will never get that gold jacket! Ya jackass
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @07:05PM
Well, a socialist revolution must have a grassroots origin. However, as you seem to imply, we must always be cautious of how the oligarchy will subvert grassroots movements using COINTELPRO techniques. Examples of successful COINTELPRO deployments include Occupy Wall Street and the TEA Party (be sure to understand the early history and involvement of small l libertarians, the kind of believe all immigrants should be welcomed without arbitrary constructs the create classes of illegal immigration ["big government"], before knee-jerking).
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) may in fact be such a COINTELPRO effort deployed against the growing awareness of the inherent contradictions of capitalism and growing sympathy for socialism. (This supports the theory of massive control on the part of the oligarchy.)
Above all else, we need a grassroots movement to at least update our voting system to ensure its democratic execution. This is a goal that the Libertarian Party and the Green Party seem to support, and I would hope that as a practical matter, the Socialist Equality Party would also support. Once we have reasserted democracy, then we will be in a position of power to begin to really fix things.
(Score: 3, Funny) by coolgopher on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:41AM
Except a) some bastards will have linked statically, b) more bastards won't bother to upgrade, and c) poor bastards are stuck with a Docker container they can't upgrade...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:47AM (3 children)
My bad, didn't answer your last question. There are plenty of ways you could go about it; some absolutely vile, some less so. For starters, there are plenty of anti-trust laws on the books that could easily be used to claim authority or you could use the Commerce Clause for something that actually is interstate commerce for a change. Myself, were I Grand High Dictator, I'd forbid and invalidate exclusive contracts, exclusive laws, and exclusive architecture (all architecture going forward should be designed in such a way that multiple providers could easily operate on the same hardware in the area). I'd also require anyone who'd already engaged in such foot the bill for revamping the architecture where needed if they cared to continue operating there. Their option entirely.
You might think this sounds very anti-libertarian but it's really not. Libertarians are not anarchists. There are plenty of laws we're peachy keen with. If what you're doing is no-debate-about-it intended to harm others for your own gain, pretty much nobody is going to say we shouldn't have a law against it. And that's exactly what exclusive contracts and regulatory capture are both designed to do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Sunday July 15 2018, @03:57PM (2 children)
I don't think you can do that - one of the things the Constitution is pretty clear about is that you can't pass a law with consequences for actions in the pass.
Do you want to be a fucking king? Well I suppose the statement Grand High Dictator indicates you aren't saying this is suitable for something like POTUS. But then also it isn't even suitable for the US at all since no retroactive bill would be legal.
What do we do in the US to unfuck it?
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Sunday July 15 2018, @08:01PM
That only applies to criminal laws (see Cader v. Bull [wikipedia.org]). And even in criminal cases, it's not absolute.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 16 2018, @05:53PM
Not remotely. I don't even want to admin the site here. I'm sick to death of having responsibility that isn't absolutely necessary for me to take on. That was a "for the sake of argument" clause.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fritsd on Sunday July 15 2018, @08:53AM (2 children)
That's a good point. However:
You are assuming, that you TMB can somehow find out when they're censoring a certain website i.e. are assholes, and choose another ISP when they are not delivering.
If the existing University of Manitoba server with the free downloadable copy of "The Authoritarians" disappears(*) from the Internet (from your ISP's perspective), how would you ever find out?
Better still: if someone makes a new website or web service, say something like "yfitops: better than Spotify and shares more revenue with the artists".
Your ISP blocks it because it is innovative and a competitor to services that pay your ISP. Now monopoly has been locked-in and you'd have to find out by word of mouth that it even exists.
(*) http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ [umanitoba.ca]
(Score: 2) by jcross on Sunday July 15 2018, @01:41PM (1 child)
The way the law is going is probably bad, I won't deny that, but all the handwringing is based on the assumption that the internet has no proper privacy layer. And it doesn't yet (e.g. standard DNS is still travelling in the clear), but it's already a giant stack of protocols and what's one more? This has been needed for a long time, and I think the incipient legal/commercial landscape might be the push required to get mainstream traction for it. Until we deploy a technical solution, we're just taking someone's word for it that our communications are uncensored and private. I doubt anyone here buys that, but I think the general public will assume it until shown otherwise. Why should we stop the law from showing them otherwise?
Here are two of the proposed networking layers I've heard of, there are probably more:
https://www.zerotier.com/ [zerotier.com]
https://www.orchid.com/ [orchid.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @04:19PM
i tend to agree with this notion. the only practical way to deal with the corrupt nature of the world's businesses and governments is to use technology to make these fucks obsolete. it's probably our only hope. to do it faster than the systems of slavery they are building with all their slave trade money, we need to use tech to organize a global effort.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:30PM (1 child)
Here's the problem with your solution: It in no way matches reality.
Where you live, odds are you have about 2-5 options for Internet connectivity. The players are likely to be (a) a major cable company such as Comcast or Spectrum, (b) a major telecom such as AT&T, and (c) a satellite provider or two with a slow-as-heck uplink.
Now, let's say the government wants to censor a website you like. So they call up their buddies at AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, and a half-dozen other big ISPs and say "Hey, can you block all traffic to the IPs pointed to by this domain name? We'll give you $X for your trouble. And don't tell anybody you did it." The ISPs will likely say "Sure!", because:
(a) The website in question may not be popular enough that they could even potentially lose more than $X in revenue for blocking that website.
(b) Lots of customers will be pissed, but not pissed enough to leave.
(c) If the ISP I work for censors xyz.com, odds are the other ISPs are also censoring xyz.com. So the pissed off customers who leave my service will be balanced out by the pissed off customers leaving my competitors' service to try me out.
(d) If the ISP doesn't do it, somebody is sure to say, in public, "Pure-As-Snow ISP, Inc is allowing TERRORISTS to get their message out!" which will be a big PR hassle at best.
So, even if you decide that you're really going to change ISPs, and go through the time, hassle, and expense of doing so, you'll find that your favorite website is still blocked.
And of course after a few dozen rounds of this, I'm sure folks at both the government and the ISPs will make efforts to automate this exchange, to save time and valuable staff resources. So now at the press of a button, some boffin can decide on a whim what you can't see (not "aren't allowed to see", but "cannot see", and you can be certain that workarounds like Tor are first on their blocklist). And with no regulatory changes and nobody acting against their self-interest and no public knowledge beyond "Hey I can't see my favorite website anymore!", you've now built a Great Firewall of America.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @08:13PM
VPN
That's enterprise, and will always be excluded from manipulation. You have execs (1st class citizens) that require business connections in residential areas. Nothing new about it.
The ISPs can't see jack diddly shit to block anything, without hugely expensive realtime deep packet inspection on heavily encrypted connections with multiple layers involved.
Only drawback is that you pay more for the connection, but freedom these days is only available to the upper classes anyways.
All of my packets leaving my residence exit my office before going on the Internet, and that is a direct tap not monitored or manipulated. All the really interesting activity exits northern Europe, and is sent back to me across two VPNs.
Comcast can burn in hell and they will never succeed in controlling my packets. They are forced to be a common carrier.
-- ediii
(Score: 5, Insightful) by srobert on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:42PM
Competition for ISP's sounds great. Now I'll go to the website of my ISP's competitor to see what kind of deal I can get ...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Sunday July 15 2018, @03:43PM (1 child)
Maybe ISPs should have the right to censor. But they better be very careful about exercising it. For an example why, consider Prodigy. They censored content, ostensibly to keep everyone safe from the naughty bits of the Internet. Then when little Johnny saw something inappropriate, his mommy sued Prodigy, and won. Prodigy tried to argue that they were just a common carrier, not responsible for the content. Everyone was reminded that they had made themselves responsible, and they had no good answer.
However, you took the discussion off track. The Right to Free Speech does not include or imply the Right to Censor! That is a totally upsidedown interpretation. Whatever rights censorship is based on, it's _not_ Free Speech. And this Supreme Court nominee showed what a bad choice he is by using such nutty pretzel logic to claim otherwise. Not that we didn't already know that, but every additional bit of evidence could help sway a few more Congress critters against him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 17 2018, @08:02PM
you misunderstood what the First Amendment means. The Government doesn't have the Right to Censor. The People can censor each other all they want, if they manage to. And since for some reason (*cough* money *cough*) companies are now People and are in a position where they can censor...
(Score: 5, Informative) by Tangaroa on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:34AM (7 children)
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:11AM (1 child)
What a bunch of bullshit. Flooding with a ddos attack is quite obviously different traffic, and spam is eadily filtered into a spam folder so no censorship needed. False flag, apparently this whole site is a plant to gain grassroots credibility. Fuck you shills.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:46PM
Are you assuming that ISPs are still common carriers? We got rid of Net Neutrality, so now this is the next step towards infrastructure-level internet censorship.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday July 15 2018, @08:47AM (4 children)
The first amendment has no implication here. This is purely about whether so-called ISPs will be able to engage in marketing even more deceptive than they're already allowed to engage in. Internet service? Sure! Just agree to charges! Then later "internet service? what are you talking about? you have connectivity to our approved sites and ad sponsors, that's all you are going to get!
I don't know a single US 'ISP' that actually lives up to the name anymore. The situation is beyond absurd. Give humanity the greatest gift you can imagine, come back in 25 years, I guarantee you we will have found a way to screw it up you could never have imagined.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday July 15 2018, @10:28AM (3 children)
There's plenty of real, old-school ISPs left — they're just not nationwide contenders with giant ad budgets, and in many cases only cover a county or state.
My ISP for the past decade (DSLExtreme) is that sort; I pay my monthly dues, and in return get a dumb unlimited/unmetered pipe and Usenet access. The ISP I used for the 12 years prior to that (Sonic.net) is the same, though I'm not sure whether Usenet is included these days.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Sunday July 15 2018, @01:27PM
Usenet access, now that is something.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:31PM (1 child)
No there aren't. I'm not sure where you people get that idea from because it's not true.
Around here we have 2 options. 2. Any other option uses the wires from those 2 ISPs and they tend to be a lot more expensive. In many areas there's only one option or if you're extremely lucky 3, but it's just not true to claim that most of us have choices in which ISP because we really don't. And what happens when one of the ISPs sucks on one thing and the other sucks on another? We can't realistically vote with our wallets in a situation like that as we'd be potentially voting against one of the practices and for the other.
This whole ignorance that even in urban areas everybody has multiple options is just absurd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @11:26PM
Incidentally that is how Sonic.net got started, they charged $5 more than the DSL service they resold. I guess they ight now have their own infrastructure, but my guess is they are piggybacking on Google's fiber.
This magical belief in the free market is killing me, the markets are shrinking into mega-corps only yet we still have people trying to sell that fantasy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilPapa on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:35AM (11 children)
Kavanaugh will be the first Supreme Court nominee who was nominated by someone who got fewer votes than the other candidate and was confirmed by senators who represent fewer voters than the other party.
Federalism is elitism. Federalism is white supremacy. Federalism is feudalism. The US Constitution is obsolete.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:44AM (9 children)
Didn't take you for a "states' rights" kind of guy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilPapa on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:20AM (8 children)
I guess you don't know what "federalism" means. I guess they don't teach United States civics over there.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 3, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:52AM (4 children)
I know precisely what it means. I even understand how it's been used in context throughout our history. You obviously do not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday July 15 2018, @03:38PM (3 children)
Then why would you think federalism is the opposite of "states rights"?
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @11:15PM (2 children)
It could be that our resident carrion bird is thinking of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. This was an early partisan division in the aftermath of the (American) Revolutionary War. At that time, the Articles of Confederation were the law of the land, which created an entity that is perhaps best compared to the modern-day EU. The early nation was quickly lead to a series of crises arising from conflicts between the Several States (the thirteen colonies). The proposed solution was a federalist solution, which would create a stronger federal government to supersede the Articles.
The solution was eventually ratified in the form of the modern United States Constitution. Therefore, federalism may be seen as the antithesis of states' rights, as the States were required to (voluntarily) give up additional sovereignty during the ratification of the Constitution.
For some light reading, The Federalist Papers [gutenberg.org] may be found on Project Gutenberg. See also The Anti-Federalist Papers [utulsa.edu].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 16 2018, @02:19AM
Thank you for that, i started to do a little research but couldnt maintain the motivation and didnt want to talk out my ass.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 16 2018, @05:57PM
On the nose. Gracias. I've been too busy to play.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:42AM (2 children)
That word looks suspiciously like "feudalism"...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:08PM (1 child)
The Mightbe Buzzard is just feeling, ya know, guilty, I guess.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @11:17PM
If only it were possible, but sadly most sociopaths are incapable.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:29PM
"Racism is OK when we do it! Now shut up and agree with us or else we'll riot and kill you!"
-Tolerant, Inclusive Leftists
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:41AM (2 children)
Everyone who is surprised that the orange traitor picked a piece of shit with a mouth full of big business cock, raise your hand.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by vux984 on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:18AM (1 child)
Frankly, I'm just happy he picked an actual plausible candidate as opposed to someone who just plays one on TV. For all the huffing and puffing, he'll probably be fine. He's not who I'd want, but I'm not particularly worried about him either.
It's not really the supreme court's job to change the direction of the country. That's supposed to be congress and the senate,, reflecting the will of the people. Sure I was disappointed with citizen's united, and I am disappointed with the gerrymandering rulings -- precisely because they corrupt proper representation. But its not really supposed to be up to the supreme court to fix that stuff anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:16PM
It's their job to interpret the laws and the Constitution correctly, which this guy obviously isn't going to do. To be fair, there are issues where the others don't do that either, but this guy is awful.
So, if the government is violating the Constitution, then it's absolutely the job of the Supreme Court to put a stop to that once the issue is brought before them, even if that changes the direction of the country.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:06AM (3 children)
Folks, you won't believe the tremendous deal I made. Justice Anthony talked to me. And he said there might be some cases about me that come to SC. And he doesn't want to recuse. He hasn't recused, he told me he would have to recuse because of his boy, Justin K. Because of the $1 billion from Deutsche Bank -- from Justin who was at D.B. And because Justin is working for my daughter & my son in law. By the way, so different from Jeff Sessions aka Mr. Magoo, so much better. If you're going to recuse, you say something before it. You give a warning. Anyway, Justice Anthony wants Judge Brett to be the new guy. Because Brett was his clerk, they have a great relationship. And as you can tell from this story, Judge Brett is very smart. He figured out that internet is like cable TV. Who thinks about that stuff, right? Great thinker. Young. Not bad looking, not as good looking as Justin from Canada. But he's not hard to look at. There's a lot to love about Judge Brett. And about our deal. I win, Ivanka & Jared win, Anthony K. wins, Justin K. wins, Brett K. wins and most importantly America wins. America First!!!! #WINNING [twitter.com]
(Score: 2, Redundant) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday July 15 2018, @12:47PM (2 children)
(cont) Judge Brett will be great for America. Because we'll have a VERY CLEAN guy on SC. A guy that knows the latest laws, very modern and he has 2 degrees from Yale. Because he's the guy that has to go in, or the deal is off. And most importantly because he'll STOP the Phoney Russia Witch Hunt!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:49PM (1 child)
Hmm... Roe v. Wade, then, is not a primary objective?
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday July 15 2018, @07:10PM
Justice Anthony didn't want to fix Roe v. Wade. And Judge Brett is Anthony's guy. But, he's also his own guy -- aren't we all? And he's said some things that make me worry a little bit. I'm sure you've seen them too -- if not you can look at the other story on SoylentNews. He said it was decided by SC. By the old SC, not the new one with him on it. When he's on District court, he can't change SC decisions. When he's on SC, he can change them. Maybe we're not 100% on that one. But he's a very solid guy on many things. The Presidency, that's going to be a biggie. And when he has 4 other guys backing him up, hopefully he'll do the right thing. Let me tell you, if he fixes Roe it's tremendous for my supporters. Tremendous for me. Tremendous for our Republican Party. And terrific for the American people. Who I always always put first!!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Corelli's A on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:12AM (1 child)
Is this really what ISPs want? If they exercise "editorial control" over content, then they are responsible for that content. Let's watch 'em squeal about the liability.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:37AM
You realize that if they have the political clout to get this shit pushed through then liability will just be a legal inconvenience? To gain any traction you will have to find some infraction that puts pressure on them for liability and I highly doubt they'll allow such instances to get out. If anything they'll just argue for more control so they can make sure such "travesties" don't ever occur again.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Sunday July 15 2018, @08:03AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bbIBs0P2t0 [youtube.com]
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @08:13AM (3 children)
You should all recognize the uptick of troll account posts. These fuckers are getting worried the rug will be pulled out from under them. Never forget! Never surrender!
These are some of the worst of humanity, and ust to be clear: TMB, jmorris, VLM, and runaway. Bunch of fascist fucks trying to get YOU to agree with their populist bullshit. Fascism is bad mmmkay?
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:13PM
I mean, I'm a troll too, but my objective is to make you puke, or at least make it hard to eat.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:31PM (1 child)
I just read on the news last night that a famous member of the Clinton circle proposed an "enemies list" of names to purge and harass once they got into power again. And now here's another one on a smaller scale. Fascism is so in vogue for you little mini Hitlers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @11:22PM
Ah yes, the ol' projection routine again with a mix of attempted insult reversal. Classic.
I'm no Clinton fan so that little tie in falls flat. Did I mention purging? Is there something inherently evil about listing off names? Someone better tell every school in the world! The snowflake syndrome is strong with you nutters.
If people don't want to be called out for pushing fascist agendas and generally being horrible users then maybe they shouldn't do those things? I know, tough to use that critical thinking and self-reflection.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by shortscreen on Sunday July 15 2018, @08:15AM (1 child)
If the service provider is only selling access to websites of their choosing, then they should not be calling it internet access. Otherwise it's like auctioning off a New World Encyclopedia set and then only shipping the letters A and B.
(Score: 2, Touché) by SemperOSS on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:40AM
And like cellphone companies selling unlimited data plans where you are only allowed a certain amount of data ... Oh, they do!
I don't need a signature to draw attention to myself.
Maybe I should add a sarcasm warning now and again?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SemperOSS on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:37AM (1 child)
I am not American and I am definitely not a lawyer either but as I understand it, if an ISP takes "editorial control" of the internet content flowing through their lines they would automatically become liable for infringing and harmful content that is sent over the lines. If that is the case, ISPs would be rather reckless to take this "editorial control".
I don't need a signature to draw attention to myself.
Maybe I should add a sarcasm warning now and again?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:53PM
Are we trusting that some fantasy that laws, for example, prohibiting the transmission of child pornography, will be enforced? Since when has law enforcement ever had an obligation to enforce laws being broken? Wasn't enforcement ever at the discretion of those with power?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:46AM (2 children)
BUT, since you say "I have right to censor what passes from MY internet tubes", you automatically get fully responsible for what passes and you don't censor. Enjoy your nazipedoterrorism sacrosanct charges.
"but this will destroy the internet"
The internet is basically pwned already. The sooner people go to private encrypted content addressed networks the better.
Great pick, eh, Donald.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Bot on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:48AM
TLDR, what #707562, the post above mine, said.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:27PM
Yeah, wut.
The ISP is engaging in speech when it censors instead of acting as a dumb pipe? Fuck it, just switch everything to dark web already.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Sunday July 15 2018, @01:45PM (3 children)
Brett Michael Kavanaugh, born 1965. Mother Lawyer and father was the president of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. All laws and being boss.
So lawyer lawyer.. [wikipedia.org]
This mindset of a cable providing "programming" likely stem from a 1960s mindset which can't cognitively grasp a networking view. The lawyer environment mindset is to make laws and enforce them. Realities be damned and people. Going to be more problems from this lifeform in the feature.
Oh btw.. ever seen any larger congregation of engineers in the government? ;-)
This lawyer cognition is likely also one of their great weaknesses. Exploit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:37PM (2 children)
Judges tend to be developmentally delayed and incapable of understanding that the world is a complex place. They've got the intellectual and moral development of a high school student, but have a huge amount of power.
They generally can't grasp the consequences of things like declaring corporations to be people or declaring Bush to be President without actually counting the votes when doing so. And they can't comprehend the fact that the constitution does apply to everything that happens in the US, including areas near the borders.
Basically judges are subhumans and it wouldn't surprise me if in the near future it becomes open season on federal judges as that's the only way to remove the incompetent and corrupt judges that have been seated. The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for not having filled those seats while Obama was in office.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Sunday July 15 2018, @03:13PM (1 child)
Any proof of this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @09:21PM
Hundreds of years of batshit insane legal decisions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @05:04PM
so once again we have a shining example of our lack of wisdom in dealing with technology.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @06:07PM
This is just another political clickbait article. I bet the assholes are piling on three deep with their important opinions. Boring.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @10:58PM
First up, it didn't work.
Second, people bailed for a friendlier ISP. There are lots to choose from for DSL or fibre